A Research paper on Funding the Right to Education by Shruti Ambast

CCS Researching Reality Internship 2010 Funding the Right to Education

1

FUNDING THE

RIGHT TO EDUCATION

Submitted to

Centre for Civil Society

By

Shruti Ambast

Working Paper No 241

Summer Research Internship 2010

Centre for Civil Society


2

Abstract

This paper seeks to identify and provide a preliminary analysis on issues which

arise in context of funding the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory

Education Act (RTE). The Act, which has been enforced recently, requires an

unprecedented sum of money, rough estimates of which are currently available.

These estimates, when probed, were found to be lacking in several respects.

The sum of 1.71 lakh crores – stated as required expenditure to implement RTE

over five years – seems to be insufficient when seen in the light of earlier

estimates made in 2005. Also, some provisions of the act have not been

accounted for.

Besides this, there is a need to investigate whether or not different states are

justified in demanding more funds for RTE. At the same time it seems inevitable

that the Centre will have to cover a higher proportion of the total required

expenditure than it is presently stipulated to do under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan

norms.

Several problems that have been observed in fund flows under the Sarva Shiksha

Abhiyan need to be addressed to ensure that they do not persist under RTE.

A slightly removed but related issue is that of the reimbursement to be given by

the government to private unaided schools in exchange for their to reserving


3

25% of seats for disadvantaged children free of cost. Some preliminary findings

suggest that the amount of reimbursement determined by the government will

be inadequate for private schools and, more importantly, that there is a need to

work out a comprehensive mechanism to enforce this particular clause of the

legislation.


4

Table of Contents

1. List of Abbreviations .................................................................................. 6

2. Introduction ............................................................................................. 7

3. Right to Education Legislation……………………………………………………………………8

4. Overview of Education Expenditure in Context of RTE .................................. 9

4.1 The 6% Target .................................................................................... 9

4.2 Present Allocations ............................................................................. 11

4.3 Financial Estimations for Achieving UEE ............................................... 11

5. Estimation of Financial Requirements for RTE, 2009 .................................... 13

5.1 National-level and State-level Estimates ............................................... 13

5.2 Teacher Salary ................................................................................... 14

5.3 Analysis with Reference to CABE 2005 ................................................. 16

5.4 Entitlement to Children ....................................................................... 19

6. Centre-State Fund Sharing ........................................................................ 20

7. SSA Fund Flows and What Can Be Learnt From Them ................................. 22

8. Assessing Per-Child Expenditure in Context of RTE, Section 12 .................... 26

8.1 Private Schools’ Per-Child Expenditure ................................................. 27

8.2 Government’s Per-Child Expenditure .................................................... 28

8.3 Framing a Solution ............................................................................. 29

9. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 30

10. References ............................................................................................ 31


5

Annexure I .................................................................................................. 35

Annexure II ................................................................................................. 38


6

1. List of Abbreviations

BRC: Block Resource Centre

CABE: Central Advisory Board of Education

CRC: Cluster Resource Centre

DIET: District Institute for Education and Training

MHRD: Ministry of Human Resource Development

NUEPA: National University for Educational Planning and Administration

PTR: Pupil Teacher Ratio

RTE: Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (as notified on 1 April

2010)

SSA: Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan

UEE: Universalisation of Elementary Education


7

2. Introduction

The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act(henceforth RTE) is

finally in position to be implemented. As expected, there are many concerns

about this process, not least of which are questions regarding funding for such a

huge undertaking. There are various issues which arise in the above context

which need to be analysed and, if not resolved, then at least brought to the

notice of policymakers and all other actors involved in executing RTE. This paper

seeks to address these very issues and provide a preliminary analysis of the

same.

The structure of the paper is as follows: Firstly, it will take a brief look at

government expenditure on education, focussing on the elusive 6% target. Then

it will present insight into how estimates of financing legislation such as RTE are

made and what are the problems that arise in doing so. This includes

presentation of an overview of estimates that have been made over time,

comparisons among them, gaps in the current estimates, and why they need to

be filled. Next, it will review and analyse the altercation between the Centre and

the states over the sharing of finances. It will then review the shortcomings in

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) funding, and how and why they need to be tackled

under RTE. Additionally, it will address the issue of reimbursement to private

unaided schools that arises under Section 12 of the RTE.


8

3. The Right to Education Legislation

“The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the

commencement of the Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all

children until they complete the age of fourteen years.”1

On 1 April 2010, the State finally undertook the endeavour described in the

above statement, albeit with some tweaking of the target age-group. This date

marked the enforcement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory

Education Act (RTE). The Right to Education was made a fundamental right in

2002, under Section 21A of the constitution, by way of the Constitution Act

(Eighty-sixth Amendment). Between then and now, the legislation to implement

the RTE has been drafted and redrafted several times, specifically in 2003, 2004,

2005 and 2008. The 2008 bill was taken forward, and approved, with minor

changes, in 2009.2

1 Article 45, Part IV, The Constitution of India (prior to the 86th Amendment Act) 2 A comprehensive history of the RTE legislation is available at www.azimpremjifoundation.org/html/RtEOverview.htm, from where the information in the referred paragraph has been sourced


9

4. Overview of Education Expenditure in Context of RTE

4.1 The 6% Target

The National Policy on Education, 1986 stated the need to increase expenditure

on education till it reaches 6% of GDP. This was reportedly based on the

recommendations of the Kothari Commission (1964-66). Further on, the UPA

government in its Common Minimum Programme (2004) pledged to achieve this

target in a ‘phased manner’. The latest set of statistics available from the

Ministry of Human Resource Development show that the pledge is still far from

fulfilled.

Table 1: Budgeted Expenditure on Education3

Year Total Education Expenditure (in Rs crores)

Education Expenditure as % of GDP

2006-07 137383.99 3.642007-08 161419.92 (RE)* 3.742008-09 186498.58 (BE)** 3.78

A recent study4 by Pankaj Jain and Ravindra Dholakia demonstrates that even

allocating 6% of GDP to the education sector will not suffice to achieve

3 GDP figures have been taken from National Accounts Statistics, Central Statistical Organisation. Education expenditure figures have been taken from Budgeted Expenditure on Education, Dept. of Higher Education, MHRD * Revised Expenditure ** Budget Expenditure


10

Universilisation of Elementary Education (UEE) unless a Public-Private

Partnership (PPP) model for setting up schools is taken up. The point they make

is that excessive reliance on government schools, especially given the

recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission on teacher salaries, will

render RTE unfeasible.

Failure to meet the 6% target has always been a major concern for educationists

who have seen it as a lack of commitment to the education sector on the

government’s part. This is definitely a valid concern, especially in light of the

findings cited above. However, it is important to ascertain if better and more

efficient utilization of funds will negate the need to raise the proportion of

expenditure on education. There is ample evidence of funds being under-utilised

in case of the SSA. It has also been seen that many countries have achieved UEE

by spending less than 6% of GDP, as mentioned in the Jain and Dholakia paper.

Thus, instead of just racing after the 6% target, a greater priority for the

government should be to ensure 100% utilization of currently available funds in

a timely and efficient manner.

4 The study was published in the Economic and Political Weekly, June 2009.


11

4.2 Present Allocations

The government intends to implement RTE through the SSA, according to

various Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) officials as well as

the Anil Bordia Committee Report, April 2010.5 The Bordia Committee was

formed to look into the details of incorporating the norms of RTE into the

existing SSA structure. The following table presents a summary of the allocations

which have been made in the current fiscal budget with respect to education.

Table 2: Allocations for 2010-2011

Allocation (2010-2011) (in Rs crores) Education 49,904

School Education and Literacy

33,214

SSA 15,000Grants-in-aid for elementary education

24,068

Source: Union Budget 2010-11, 13th Finance Commission Report

The allocation to SSA implies that Rs 15,000 crores is available with the Centre to

spend on RTE this year, pending revisions to the budget. As shown in Section 5,

this falls short of what is required to implement the Act.

4.3 Financial Estimations for Achieving UEE

The following table shows the various estimates that have been made, over the

years, for achieving UEE through a fundamental Right to Education.

5 Available on the SSA online portal (www.ssa.nic.in)


12

Table 3: Estimates for Achieving UEE

Authority/Source

Amount Required (Rs crores)

Average Annual Requirement (Rs crores)

Saikia Committee (1997)

40,000 for five years 8000

Tapas Majumdar Committee (1999)

1,36,922 for ten years 13, 692.2

93rd Amendment Bill6 (2001)

98,000 for ten years 9800

CABE Committee Report* (2005)

3,21,196 to 4,36,459 for six years

53,533 to 72,743

NUEPA* (2009) 1,71,780 for five years

34,356

The Saikia Committee, a committee of state education ministers, had made only

a rough estimate, taking a per-child expenditure of Rs 948 and multiplying it with

the number of children in the age group 6-14. When the task was handed over

to the Tapas Majumdar Committee, it was done in a much more thorough

manner, resulting in a much higher estimate (Majumdar, 1999). A similar

discrepancy can be observed between the 2001 and the 2005 estimates. It is

clear that making estimates for a legislation as vast in scope as this involves a

meticulous exercise.

6 This was the bill proposed to make the Right to Education a fundamental right. The estimate was provided in the financial memorandum accompanying the bill. Source: PRS Legislative Brief * Details of these two estimates are given in the following section.


13

5. Estimation of Financial Requirements for RTE, 2009

A team from the National University for Educational Planning and Administration

has prepared a report titled ‘Financial Implications of the Right of Children to

Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009’, dated December 2009. The figure

they arrived at is Rs 171780 crores for over five years from 2010-11 to 2014-15,

or about Rs 34356 crore per year. This is the estimated additional cost for

implementing RTE, which is to form the basis of the government’s budget

allocation. It is over twice what has been allocated in the 2010-2011 Union

Budget.

The estimates have been made in a rather roundabout way. They have used the

projected child population and the stipulated Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) of 30:1

to arrive at the number of additional teachers required. This number has then

been used to estimate the number of additional classrooms and other

infrastructure.

5.1 National-level and State-level Estimates

A basic problem with this estimate is that it does not tally with the total of the

states’ estimates. When estimates were made separately for each state and


14

totaled, the figure came to Rs 204609 crores for expenditure over five years, or

about Rs 40922 crores per year. The following is the explanation for the

mismatch as given in the report, supplied by a professor at the National

University for Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA) who was part of

the team. While making the national estimates, the number of additional

required teachers was aggregated in such a way that the number of excess and

deficit teachers in different states could be cancelled out. This incorporates an

assumption that an ‘extra’ teacher from one state can be deployed to fill the

vacancy in another state. In reality, this would obviously not be viable. When the

estimates were made separately for each state, the total number of additional

teachers required turned out to be far more, resulting in a higher estimate.

Accordingly, when the Act is put into practice, it will actually require at least Rs

204609 crores.

5.2 Teacher Salary

Another questionable premise in these estimates are the teacher salaries, which

have been estimated as follows:

• Rs 8400 per month for all teachers at primary level, and 80% of the

teachers at upper primary level


15

• Rs 11,200 per month for 20% of the teachers at upper primary level, who

are Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs)

According to the report, these levels have been arrived at based on the revised

pay scales as per the Sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC) and with an

assumption of a 40% rise in the salaries estimated in the Central Advisory Board

of Education (CABE) report 2005 (Rs 6000 and Rs 8000 respectively,

corresponding to the two levels given above). But judging by the numbers, the

CABE estimates have just been increased by 40%.

It is also unclear whether these salaries comprise just the basic pay or the

various allowances as well. According to one set of estimates made by R.C. Jain,

the total pay for primary teachers inclusive of all allowances amounts to Rs

23,346, and that for a TGT amounts to Rs 25,287. According to the Dholakia and

Jain study cited in section 4.1, the 6th CPC recommends Rs 13,042 for primary

teachers and Rs 15,996 for secondary schools teachers. There seems to be

ambiguity in the actual salaries that will be paid but, if any of these estimates are

at all accurate, then there is a serious underestimation in the RTE budget.

Teacher salary forms the largest component in the NUEPA estimates; if the

salaries have been underestimated, the actual budget could be substantially

higher.


16

The remaining problems in these estimates can be analysed by conducting a

comparison with the CABE estimates, 2005.

5.3 Analysis with Reference to CABE 2005

In 2005, CABE was reconstituted to come up with a draft of the RTE bill. The

draft prepared by them was accompanied by a financial estimate prepared by

NUEPA. This bill was rejected by the central government on the grounds that it

could not raise the kind of funds required by the bill. What the government then

did was send a model bill to the states, who could then draft their own

legislations.7 When NUEPA came up with a new set of estimates in 2009, there

were questions as to why the amount had gone down.

The CABE estimates present an average annual expenditure of Rs 53,533 to

72,743 crores. As per NEUPA’s 2009 estimates, this figure has fallen to Rs 34,

356. A study of the two estimates reveals that there are several items which

were accounted for in the 2005, but not in 2009. Given that the schedule of

norms and standards for a school in both the June 2005 draft and the 2009 draft

of the RTE bill is nearly the same, it needs to be examined why there is a

mismatch.

7 The rejection of the 2005 draft of the bill is discussed at length in Vinod Raina’s article ‘Killing the Bill’, published in Seminar.2006.


17

In the CABE report, under Estimation of Financial Requirements, it has been

stated:

‘Norms and unit costs have been worked out as per the

current practice in states and provisions of the Right to

Education Bill, 2005 and as per the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’.

Therefore this report includes items such as kitchen facility for schools, and costs

of establishing and running DIETS, CRCs and BRCs (teacher training institutions

under SSA), while they are missing from the new estimates. When asked about

this, the NUEPA professors who were involved in making the estimates replied

that in the interim between the two estimates, these facilities and institutions

have already been established to the extent that they need not be included

again.

Furthermore, under school equipment and grants, items such as computers,

utensils, grants to School Management Committees, and research grants are all

missing from the new estimates, while they had been accounted for in 2005.

A complete comparison of the two estimates, in terms of the differences in unit

costs, which also reflects the differences in norms, is attached in Annexure 1. A


18

study of this will reveal what may be called a ‘cost-cutting’ exercise, which has

brought the estimated expenditure down.

The explanation given by the NUEPA professors for the reduction in total

estimated expenditure is two-fold. Firstly, since 2005, the child population has

been lower than what had been projected then. Secondly, between 2005 and

2009, more teachers have been recruited, which has brought down the number

of additional teachers required. The following figures, taken from both reports

confirm this:

Table 4: Comparison of Selected Statistics between the 2005 and 2009 Estimates

2005 2009Duration over which estimates have been made

2006-07 to 2011-12 2010-11 to 2014-15

Projected child population in the age-group 6-13, for the above duration (in crores)

22.57 to 24.89 18.69 to 18.24

Number of additional teachers required, for the above duration (in lakhs)

11.42 at a PTR of 35:1 10.33 at a PTR of 30:1

As per the above figures, it stands to reason that the cost would have come

down.


19

5.4 Entitlement to Children

Under section 3(2) of the RTE act, it is stated that, ‘no child shall be liable to pay

any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from

pursuing and completing the elementary education…’

In the NUEPA report, this entitlement has been accounted for as such:

75% of the child population will receive free textbooks

50% of the child population will receive free uniforms

The remaining children are assumed to have been provided these by the states,

or enrolled in private unaided schools. Transport facilities for children have not

been accounted for at all, their variability across states being cited as the reason.

Interestingly, the CABE report, which had done the same accounting as above,

had stated that the financial estimates would have to be ‘firmed up’ as the

entitlement covered only free textbooks and uniforms. The problem remains with

the 2009 estimates.

A study by S. Chandrasekhar and Abhiroop Mukhopadhyay (2006) discusses in

what ways the direct costs of education can deter children from going to school.


20

It also calculates the additional expenditure which the government will have to

incur in making primary education free, over and above the existing subsidies.

This study may be used as an indicator of the inadequacy of the provisions that

have been made under this head.

On the whole, the NUEPA estimates may be used as a point of reference. But

they definitely do not fully reflect the expenditure that will be incurred when RTE

is put into practice.

6. Centre-State Fund Sharing

As per the SSA framework, the ratio in which the Centre and the states would

share funds was to change from 85:15 during the IX five year plan to 75:25

during the X five yearplan, for all the states. During the XI five year plan, it

would be 65:35 in 2007-08 and 2008-09, 60:40 in 2009-2010, 55:45 in 2010-

2011, and 50:50 thereafter. During this period, the fund-sharing pattern for the

8 North-eastern states would be 90:10, till the end of the programme.

If this pattern is to be followed for RTE, in the current year, the states will have

to shell out 45% of the funds required for its implementation. This is clearly not

agreeable at all to most states. The opinion of all the state education secretaries

on the fund-sharing pattern has been tabulated in The Anil Bordia Committee


21

Report. Most states feel that the Centre should take on the entire burden; many

feel that the ratio should be 90:10.

The CABE report had also stressed on the need for the financial liability to be

borne almost entirely by the Centre.

Drawn from the Anil Bordia report, and other media reports, the following are

the estimates presented by some of the states:

Bihar: Rs 20,000 crore (Outlook, May 2010) Uttar Pradesh: Rs 18,500 crore - 4000 recurring* Karnataka: Rs 16,165 crore* Orissa: Rs 13,671 crore (Orissadiary.com, June 2010) Kerala: Rs 10,000 crore (Daily Pioneer, April 2010)

* These figures have been taken from the Anil Bordia report.

As the methodology and timeframe for these estimates is not known, they

cannot directly be compared to the NUEPA estimates. Anyhow, the amounts

given by Orissa, Karnataka and Kerala are significantly more than the

corresponding NUEPA estimates (4809, 4729 and 1618 – all in crores of rupees).

On the other hand, the NUEPA estimates for Bihar and U.P. are more than their


22

own estimates. The NUEPA estimates for all the states are attached in the

annexure.

One way to analyse whether or not the states’ demands are justified is by

looking at their utilisation capacities under SSA. For instance, a report by the

Accountability Initiative (2010) shows that Bihar spent only 42% of the total

available funds in 2008-09, while Madhya Pradesh spent 57%. It is worth

investigating whether states could do better simply by utilising available funds

more punctually and efficiently.

7. SSA Fund-Flows and What Can Be Learnt From Them

SSA is monitored by multiple stakeholders – the government, state universities,

foreign agencies and civil society organisations. A reading of review reports by

various agencies suggests some key common issues regarding the fund-flow

mechanisms. Further insight into the issues was gained through discussions with

a former consultant with the National Technical Support Group, SSA, now a PhD

scholar at NUEPA.

Given that RTE is to be implemented through SSA, and that the fund-flow

mechanisms are not going to be radically different, these problems are likely to

persist and must be resolved if RTE is to be a success. The following are the


23

major reforms that have been identified as necessary to ensure smooth

implementation of RTE:

1. Decentralised planning

While a bottom-up planning approach is stressed everywhere on paper, it does

not seem to exist in practise. A policy brief by the National Institute of Public

Finance and Policy (NIPFP 2007) states that the Annual Work Plans and Budget

prepared by states are not accepted as they are. It makes the case for planning

to be more demand-driven, based on need factors, both among and within

states. The 11th Joint Review Mission Report also stresses on the same issue. It

further states the need for all schools to make a School Development Plan,

already mandated under RTE, which would be the basis for grants made to

schools.

2. Flexibility in unit costs

In discussions with the TSG consultant, it was revealed that the costs of

constructing a classroom may go up by two or three times the unit cost

prescribed by the government, in areas with unsuitable terrain. This goes to

show that fixing a national level per-head cost may impede progress towards


24

meeting the RTE norms and standards. The solution once again lies in a need-

based, demand-driven approach to financial planning.

3. Utilisation capacity

Budget utilisation has improved over the years, but in 2009-2010, expenditure

with respect to total availability of funds was still only 62%. While states like

Kerala and Tamil Nadu have been able to utilise over 90% of their funds, West

Bengal, Chattisgarh and Bihar are still lagging far behind (Joint Review

Mechanism Report, 2010). This is another problem that needs to be tackled

quickly. Fund-flows must be monitored throughout the year, at every level of

implementation.

4. Capacity-building and technical expertise

The SSA cadre of workers mostly comprises of contractual workers (with the

contract usually lasting for a year) who are unable to execute sustainable

progress. There is also often a clash between the state and the SSA-specific

administrative bodies. Now, under RTE, a permanent, consolidated structure

needs to be created, with a clearly defined administrative hierarchy. Technical

expertise also needs to be developed, so that the agents who will enforce


25

various provisions of the RTE are equipped to handle all the problems listed

above.


26

8. Assessing Per-Child Expenditure in Context of RTE, Section 12

Under Section 12 of the RTE act, all private unaided schools are required to

reserve 25% of their seat in the entry-level class for children belonging to the

economically weaker and disadvantaged groups in the neighbourhood.

In exchange, the schools will be reimbursed an amount equal to the per-child

expenditure of the state (or the actual amount charged to the child, whichever is

less).

This clause has become a bone of contention between private schools and the

government. As expected, most of the ‘elite’ schools in big cities are claiming

that the reimbursement will be nowhere near enough to cover their per-child

expenses. They will have to hike the fee for the remaining 75% students, in an

instance of cross-subsidisation. This, in turn, has unleashed a stream of protests

from parents who send their children to these schools. However, some ground-

level work reveals even ‘budget private schools’8 may be unable to have their

expenses covered under this provision.

8 These are schools which are affordable to the relatively poorer sections of society.


27

8.1 Private Schools’ Per-Child Expenditure

The following table details the estimates of per-child expenditure given by the

principals of a few budget private schools in Delhi

Table 5: Per-Child Expenditure of Private Schools

School Name Estimated Annual Per-Child Expenditure (in Rs)

J.G.M. Public School (unrecognized) 5000 – 10,000Bharti Public School (unrecognized) 3500 – 4000 Vardhaman Public School (unrecognized)

1800

Atul Shiksha Sadan 15,000 – 20,000Eminent Public School 15,000 – 20,000Navgyan Jyoti School 45,00 – 7000

None of these schools had any official figures for the per-child expenditure; they

have all given rough estimates. The estimates are reportedly inclusive of all

expenses that the schools incur. All these schools cater to an average of

approximately 200-400 students. They provide basic facilities of drinking water

and toilets. While these are rough figures, they do give an idea of the kind of

reimbursement such schools would require.


28

A pilot study conducted by Micro Credit Ratings International Ltd. (M-CRIL) in

Hyderabad for 35 budget private schools reveals that their average annual

operating expense per-child is Rs 2580.9

8.2 Government’s Per-Child Expenditure

A senior official in the Elementary Education Bureau, MHRD, claims that there is

no official figure available for the government’s annual per-child expenditure. At

the headquarters of the Delhi Directorate of Education (DoE), an official, off the

top of his head, gave a figure of Rs 700-800. A meeting with the Deputy

Director, Planning Branch, Delhi DoE was more revealing. He stated that firstly,

the Delhi government was still in the process of constructing an estimate for the

per-child expenditure, which had to be supplemented by information from the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) Secondly, he said the government is not

comfortable declaring an estimate. It feels that private schools whose

expenditure is less than the government’s (and the official claims there are many

of them) will immediately hike their fees so as to get the benefit of

reimbursement. The question remains why the government is still dithering over

this, as the problem they have cited is bound to crop up anyway.

9 The findings of this study have not been published officially yet. The information was obtained at a Dialogue Seminar on School Ratings, organised by the School Choice Campaign, where M-CRIL made a presentation on the same.


29

There seems to be no available measure of exactly what cost the government

will incur on reimbursement. While this may not be a problem this year, as most

private schools are already done with their admissions process, it needs to be

addressed at any rate.

A study on public financing of elementary education by A.N. Reddy, NUEPA,

(2008) reveals that the government’s annual per-child expenditure in 2004-05

was Rs 2827. This figure has been arrived at by dividing the total budgeted

expenditure on elementary education by the number of children enrolled in

government primary and upper primary schools. If a similar calculation is made

with more recent data, a rough estimate will be available.

8.3 Framing a Solution

If the estimates obtained from the budget private schools are accurate, then it is

unlikely that the reimbursement will cover the expenses for most of them.

A fair way must be devised to execute the reimbursement process. As of now,

the RTE Act does not give any details regarding this process. While it does not

seem fair to provide an inadequate reimbursement to the private schools and

leave them to cope with the ramifications, it will be hard to ascertain the

requirements for each school separately. Nevertheless, a mechanism must be


30

worked out to take into consideration the various facilities and infrastructure in

the schools, as well as the quality of education they are providing, before

estimating the reimbursement.

9. Conclusion

The staggering scope of the RTE legislation implies that its success is contingent

on the degree of precision and detail in its implementation. It means that every

rupee allocated has to be spent just right. This would require a much more

concentrated effort towards financial planning.

Firstly, every provision entailed in the act has to be thoroughly accounted for,

and budgetary allocation must be made accordingly. If the government is serious

about achieving UEE in India, financial constraints can no longer be used as an

excuse. The accounting must also be done in a manner that permits flexibility

according to the needs of different schools and children. Secondly, the fund

flows must be monitored at every level and the problems identified under SSA

funding must be done away with, as discussed in section 7. Finally, resolution of

issues such as reimbursement, on which there is no official word yet, must not

be delayed any longer.


31

10. References

Annual Status of Education Report (Rural). 2009.Mumbai: Pratham Resource

Centre.

Chandrasekhar S. and Abhiroop Mukhopadhyay. 2006, September. “Primary

Education as a Fundamental Right, Cost Implications”. Economic and Political

Weekly. 41 (35): 3797-3804.

Constitution of India (prior to the 86th Amendment Act), Article 45, Part IV

Daily Pioneer. 2010. “Finance upsets RTE applecart”. 12 April. Accessed on 11

June 2010 at www.dailypioneer.com/248609/Finance-upsets-RTE-applecart.html

Government of India. 2006. Performance Audit Report on Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.

Ministry of Human Resource Development. Department of Elementary Education

and Literacy. Accessed on 18 June 2010 at

http://www.cag.gov.in/html/reports/civil/2006_15_peraud/contents.htm

Government of India. Report of the Thirteenth Finance Commission (2010-2015).

Ministry of Finance. Accessed on 25 May 2010 at

http://fincomindia.nic.in/ShowContentOne.aspx?id=28&Section=1


32

Government of India. 2010. Union Budget 2010-11. New Delhi: Government of

India.

Unknown Author. 2009. Financial Implications of the Right of Children to Free

and Compulsory Education Act,. National University for Educational Planning and

Administration. December 2009.

India, Gazette of. 2009. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education

Act, 2009. Government Report, New Delhi: Government of India Press.

Jain, Pankaj S. and Ravindra H. Dholakia. 2009. “Feasibility of Implementation of

Right to Education Act”. Economic and Political Weekly. XLIV (25): 38-43. DATE

Kanungo, Dipti. 2010. “Orissa Education minister Pratap Jena meets Kapil Sibal,

highlighted need of Rs.13,671 crores for implementation of RTE Act”. Orissa

Diary, 10 June. Accessed on 11 June 2010 at

www.orissadiary.com/CurrentNews.asp?id=19015.

Kapur, Avani and Sruti Bandyopadhyay. 2010. Accountability India Budget Briefs,

Education Sector 2, (1). Accessed on 21 May 2010 at

http://accountabilityindia.org/index.php?menu=1


33

Mukherjee, Anit N. and Tapas K. Sen. 2007. Universalising Elementary Education:

An Assessment of the Role of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. National Institute of

Public Finance and Policy. Accessed on July 2 at

www.nipfp.org.in/displaymore.php?idd=220&cid=156

National Common Minimum Programme of the Government of India. May 2004.

New Delhi: Government of India. Accessed on 7 July 2010 at

http://pmindia.nic.in/cmp.pdf

National Policy on Education, 1968. New Delhi: Government of India. Accessed

on July 9 2010 at http://www.ugc.ac.in/policy/policy.html

.Outlook 2010 “RTE: States Want Centre to Foot Bulk of Expense”.24 May

Accessed on 11 June 2010 at www.news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?679145.

Raina, Vinod. 2006. “Killing the Bill”. Seminar, # 565, September. Accessed on

25 May 2010 at www.india-seminar.com/2006/565/565_vinod_raina.htm

Reddy, A.N. 2008. “Public Financing of Elementary Education in India”. Indian

Journal of Social Development. 8 (1): 19-36.

Central Advisory Board of Education. 2005. Report of the Central Advisory Board

of Education (CABE) Committee on Free and Compulsory Education Bill and


34

Other Issues Related to Elementary Education, June. New Delhi: Government of

India Accessed on 24 May 2010 at www.education.nic.in/cabe/Fcebill.pdf

Anil Bordia Committee. 2010. RTE Report, April. New Delhi: Government of

India. Accessed on 26 May 2010 at www.ssa.nic.in/quality-of-education/rte-

reporting-by-anil-bodia-committee

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Framework Revised. 2008. Accessed on 26 May 2010 at

http://ssa.nic.in/page_portletlinks?foldername=ssa-framework

Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. 2010. Eleventh Joint Review Mission & Mid-term Review.

15-29 January. New Delhi: Government of India. Accessed on 27 June 2010 at

http://ssa.nic.in/monitoring/joint-review-mission-ssa-1/joint-review-mission-ssa

Tapas Majumdar Committee. 1999. Tapas Majumdar Committee Report. New

Delhi: Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development.

Vanka, Sarita. 2009. “Legislative Brief, The Right of Children to Free and

Compulsory Education Bill, 2008”. Parliamentary Research Service. Accessed on

21 May 2010 at

www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/1229341892/bill206_20090212206_Legislative_

Brief__The_Right_to_Education_Bill_2008.pdf


35

Annexure I

Differences in Unit Costs in the 2005 and 2009 Estimates

COMPONENT 2005 2008Civil Works and School Facilities 1. Additional classroom 2. Office-cum-store-cum-head teacher’s room 3. Drinking water facility 4. Toilet (including girl’s toilet) facility 5. Upgradation of school buildings 6. One-time grant to upgrade school facilities 7. Furniture and Equipment 8. One time grant for library

Rs 1.5 lakh Rs 1.5 lakh Rs 20,000 Rs 15,000 Rs 3 lakh per school having no pucca building for construction of two classrooms Rs 20,000 Rs 10,000 per primary school and Rs 50,000 per UP school

Rs 2 lakh Rs 2 lakh Rs 40,000 Rs 30,000 Rs 1 lakh per school having semi pucca building for upgradation Rs 5 lakh per school having kaccha or tent for upgradation Rs 50,000 Rs 10,000 for primary only, UP only, UP in high and higher secondary schools etc. Rs 25,000 for composite UP school Rs 50,000 for upgraded UP school Rs 5000 for primary schools Rs 7500 for UP schools Rs 6500 for primary


36

9. Annual grant for TLE 10. Annual maintenance grant

Rs 10,000 per primary school and Rs 12,000 per UP school

schools Rs 8500 for UP schools Rs 10,000 per primary and UP school

Note: The following grants, mentioned in the 2005 report, are not specified as norms in the 2009 report: - Computers (Rs 30,000 per UP school) - Textbooks (Rs 1500 per primary school and Rs 500 per UP Schoolteacher) - Kitchen facility (Rs 15000 primary school) - Utensils (Rs 10000 per primary school) - Teaching-learning material and equipment in pre-school classes (Rs 5000 per class (one time grant)) - Grants for sports and co-curricular activities (Rs 500 per school per annum) - Grants to SMC (Rs 1500 per SMC per annum) - Monitoring, research and evaluation grant (Rs 1500 per school per annum) - Teacher grant (Rs 500 per teacher per annum) Mainstreaming Out-of-school Children 1. Residential courses 2. Non-residential courses

Rs 6800 per child per annum Rs 3000 per child per annum

Rs 10,000 per child per annum Rs 3000 per child per annum

Integrated Education for the Disabled 1. Education of children with special needs in regular schools 2. Children with severe disability

Rs 2000 per child per annum Rs. 50,000 per child per annum (including

Rs 3000 per child per annum Rs 10,000 per child per annum (including teacher


37

teacher cost) cost)

Entitlements under ‘Free Education’ 1. Free textbooks 2. Free uniforms

Rs 300 per primary school student per annum; Rs 500 per UP school student per annum Rs 200 per child per annum

Rs 150 per primary school student per annum; Rs 200 per UP school student per annum Rs 400 per child per annum

Additional Teachers 1. Salary of non-graduate trained teacher 2. Salary of graduate trained teacher 3. Salary of part-time art, health, physical and work education instructor provided to UP schools 4. Salary of pre-school instructor

Rs 7965 per month with an increase of Rs 800 per annum (KVS pay scale) and Rs 6000 per month plus an increase of Rs.600 every year (state level) Rs 3000 per month Rs 4000 per month

Rs 8400 per month Rs 11,200 per month Rs 4200 per month

Teacher Development Note: The norms for provision of teacher training are different in both reports. The 2005 report makes no mention of training for untrained teachers. It does, however, specify norms for the working of BRCs, CRCs and DIETs (including costs of establishing new ones, salaries of staff, contingency grants and establishment of non-DIET teacher training institutions and distance education facilities), which are absent from the 2009 report. 1. Professional training for new and existing

Rs 20,000 per teacher per annum


38

untrained teachers 2. In-service training for all teachers 3. Induction training for newly appointed teachers

60-day training for 20% of existing teachers - Rs 4200 per teacher per annum 20-day training for 80% of existing teachers - Rs 1400 per teacher per annum Rs 2100 per teacher per annum

Rs 1500 per teacher per annum Rs 3000 per teacher per annum

Management 6% of total recurring costs as management cost

4% of total recurring costs as management cost (includes expenses of SCPCR & SCA)

Note: The 2005 report specifies a lump sum of Rs 10 crore for meeting the expenditure of the National Elementary Education Commission

Annexure II

NUEPA Estimates for State-wise Requirements for RTE Implementation over

2010-11 to 2014-15:


39

State Amount (Rs in crores)

Andhra Pradesh 9856

Assam 5921

Bihar 39543

Chattisgarh 3812

Gujarat 6424

Haryana 3057

Himachal Pradesh 1069

Jammu and Kashmir 2303

Jharkhand 12170

Karnataka 4729

Kerala 1618

Madhya Pradesh 7698

Maharashtra 8270

Orissa 4809

Punjab 3647

Rajasthan 9020

Tamil Nadu 3825

Uttar Pradesh 54025

Uttaranchal 1360

West Bengal 16034

North Eastern States 3662

UTs and Small States 1758

All States 204609

Documents

A Research paper on Funding the Right to Education by Shruti Ambast